To me, Hansa Teutonica has very little in common with either of those games, though I can see why you make the comparisons.

Both Goa and Taj Mahal are essentially auction games, and HT lacks any auction component. HT relies much more on making moves on the board. While moving up on tracks is important, it feels like there is more freedom in which tracks to move on than in Goa, and there seem to be viable strategies to each one.

How does Hansa Teutonica compare with a couple of older games from last decade, Goa (which also has 'development tracks'), and Taj Mahal (which has route/network building and set collection)?

I posted this in a geeklist when another person asked how it compares to GOA:

Quote:

Although there are some minimal similarities between the two games (i.e. tech tree, multiple ways to score points) they are very different games. IMHO HT plays quicker, has more depth and has much more interaction. It also has less luck (no cards) and is easier to learn. I have also found it is a great game for both new gamers as well as seasoned gamers. I have played it with hardcore games and even my 8yo and all have enjoyed it. It has 2-player rules out of the box which are not bad, but with a two-sided board it scales very well from 3-5.

I think Hansa is clearly the best game of the three. Short, interesting, lots of routes to victory. Goa is a bit broken as there is one track you have to go up (cant remember which now). Taj is a good game but suffers from the ravages of losing an auction. Here in Hansa even being displaced helps you!

Goa is a bit broken as there is one track you have to go up (cant remember which now).

I will quickly point out that, not only do players get to select what tiles will be available for auction, but they also determine the final price. Any apparently imbalance between the "tech trees", and therefore the plantations and other tiles which enable them, can be accounted for by the players themselves.